Olympus OM-D E-M5 review: Hands-On

Yesterday, Olympus stepped into the retro design game with a brand new line of micro 4/3 cameras, the OM-D.

Very different from the modern-looking PEN series, this new mirrorless cameras revives the design of the 1970s-era OM system while sporting the latest technology available from Olympus, such as a 16-Mpix sensor (with the best resolution in this line) and HD video 1080p at 30 fps, among many other features.

Further readings for the Olympus OM-D E-M5 review: Hands-On

To provide photographers with a broader perspective about mobiles, lenses and cameras, here are links to articles, reviews, and analyses of photographic equipment produced by DxOMark, renown websites, magazines or blogs.

Comments

MAJOR PROBLEMS with OM-D-E-M5!!

<div id="linkdxomark">This a comment for <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Olympus/OM-D-E-M5">this page on the website</a></div>I experienced several major problems with my new OM-D-E-M5 yesterday, and I need some explanation and help.

#1 Issue--horrible chromatic aberration/fringing--green, blue, and purple fringing along the edge of some mountain peaks at Pinnacles National Monument. Used the Lumix 20mm/1.7 aspherical lens. Unacceptable fringing -- I could never submit my shots to a contest, sell them to a client, or even blow them up to hang in my living room!

#2 Issue--strange black images! On the first shot of the day, the image turned out completely black (looked blue in the LCD). The second image was 90% black, but you could see the subject in the top-left of the image. The third image was fine. The exposure setting was exactly the same for all three shots (ISO 200, 1/4000 sec., f 4.0). This black image, then OK image pattern repeated itself 2-3 more times during the day. Oh, yeah. The lens used was the Zuiko 12mm/f2.0.

#3 Issue--exposure mistakes? I took at shot of the mountains just after the sun set. There was no exposure compensation and the resulting histogram was dead center. However, the image looked very light on my computer. I also took several other shots with positive and negative exposure compensation, and I found that the shot that looked best, most like how it really appeared to my eyes at the time I took the shot, was 1/3-2/3 stop underexposed. So, does the camera have an exposure problem?

Does anyone have an explanation for the above? If Olympus can't or won't fix the fringing, I'll have to return all the gear I bought and look for a new system. Aaargh!!

First replies for this comment

Re: A nice camera

Well, well, well...

DXO has procrastinated for so long, that I wrote them off and decided to buy my own OM-D without waiting for their analysis.

I'm glad I did, because I find it an extraordinary camera. The usability and the image quality is extraordinary. I am not surprised to learn it is the best m43 around. It has an extraordinary dynamic range, almost no-existent noise at ISOs lower than 3200 and a magnificent range of colors (I shoot exclusively in RAW mode).

So I am somewhat dissapointed at the overall results shown by DXO. So much so in fact, that I'm begining to doubt about the credibility of DXO testing. Specially after seeing the results of other tests done -with DXO software- with results completely different to those published here.

It sounds all so darn fishy... they wait and wait and wait, and finally, out of the blue, and when the OM-D no longer has any mediatic impact, they decide to release the results of their testing. By now it is irrelevant, save for historical reasons. It is of no real use to their readers.

The worst part is that these results lack credibility. My own experienced is very different. I own a Sony A77 as well as the OM-D and I have done my own informal testing and comparison with both. The OM-D is far superior -image quality wise- to the Sony in just aboout every aspect. It is hard for me to believe the A77 can be so far ahead in the ranking of DXO.

Re: Well, well, well...

Read the post by seta666, and you will get the answer to your question.The reason that the picture quality look so good to you at ISO-3200, is because its actually ISO-1489! While on the A77 its ISO-2612

Re: Well, well, well...

Well I suggest reading R Butlers article on ISO / ISO Cheating or if it should be consider cheating or is an interesting technological advancement here:http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4241806072/sense-and-sensitivity

its much easier to underestand, less confusing, well guided and straight forward IMO. it exaplins the two most common definition of ISOs very well and different camera manufacturer's take on these and personally I am very satisfied with the conclusion that says "all that matters is the final image quality and usability"!

So if you keep calling Oly tht its underexposing at equivalent ISO's, you simply are not getting the point!

Re: Well, well, well...

Why the negative responses to DXO testing?71 is better than my D300 (67) from 2008 - so, in fact, Olympus has made excellent progress with this iteration. Remember how everyone 'marvrled' at the D300. DXO doesn't have an axe to grind & the Olympus tests well. DPReview basically tests against similar cameras & does all the indepth work on handling & useability - DXO tests sensors & sensors with lenses - that's it. Technically, they appear to be bang-on.As to inferring the Oly is 'better' than the Sony A77 - I think you either are comparing jpegs on uncalibrated monitors or don't really have both cameras. Why would you have two diametrically opposed systems anyway?

Let's everyone compare test data accurately. 71 is great for 4/3rds and obviously a big improvement. Anyone arguing unfair should look more dispassionately at the results & the commendation DXO gave. The OM D is a great camera.

Re: Well, well, well...

well not just better than 5 years old d300 but you may also say same as 7 year old FF 5d!! i guess you should have a look at the discussion in other threads on om-d results, the test results were delayed for some unknown reasons and according to other review web-sites (not just dp-review), like tech-radar (using DXOMark tools) its IQ (not handeling and other stuff) are as good as any APSC to date with DR even better and if you have already gone through those threads and you haven't got the point, you will not get it. And without any doubt D300 is a great camera, used to be one of my camera crush at the time of its release. But this is almost 2013 and we are still thinking how can pooor micro size sensor compete big APSC DSLRs quality .. what the tooooot! ::)

Re: Well, well, well...

Right on, Hakeem!

Hesel, let me make clear a couple of things. I do owe an A77 (I don't care wether you believe it or not). I also own the A55, the G1 of Panasonic and two Canon cameras. All that with a nice collection of glasses to match them.

I am very pleased with the A77 overall, although I am disappointed by some things Sony has done (or rather not done) to this camera. For instance the lack of a decent bracketing mode to shoot HDRs (it has a weird bracketing system, but it doesn't take advantage of the very fast shooting the A77 is capable of - I am talking about RAW MODE, which EXCLUSIVELY how I shoot). I'm also not satisfied with the EVF of Sony - it has an excellent resolution but it is far too contrasty and not useful in many situations. The noise (I imagine due to the SLT mirror) this camera produces is noticeable even at ISOs as low as 800; that is a little disappointing but to me not critical. But what I dislike the most of this camera is its bulk and weight -given the fact that it is a mirrorless system. That is fine for some situations, but I can't take it on a trip hanging off my shoulder all day long. That was one of the reasons I was attracted to the Olympus.

I shoot mostly landscapes, and nearly always at the lowest ISO available, so I am not talking of shots done at 3200 (though as I said, the OM-D performance is very decent at this ISO). Again, as I said, I ALWAYS - please read other people's posts more carefully before jumping to conclusions - shoot in RAW. I do have a couple of well calibrated and rather expensive monitors, FYI.

I find that shooting in RAW mode, the dynamic range of the OMD is better than my A77. Again I'm talking at the lowest ISO (50 in the A77 and nominally 200 on the OM-D. There is something some "mushiness" to the A77 images that I don't understand why they happen. By contrast, the OMD gives me wonderfully vibrant, clean and crisp images. A real delight. Naturally, these later appreciations are subjective, but I heard the same exact complaints from other A77 owners, so perhaps there is some objective truth to them.

Again, I've done my own informal testing with these two cameras and results are not as DXO suggests. As Hakeem has mentioned, there are other tests done (with DXO own software!!!), notably that of Tech Radar, which indicate that the OM-D ought to rank higher that it does in DXO's chart. DXO is indeed a reference in the testing of sensors (or has been up to the recent crunch), but we should not take their measurements as gospel. There are other outfits out there how are also credible.

I do not know whether DXO has some axe to grind or not with Olympus or the M43 system. All in all I've always "trusted" DXO evaluations, as they seemed to back my own experiences. But I don't completely trust these latest results. It now seems likely (in the light of the DP Review - DXO merger) that DXO was having some economic problems. Perhaps the review of the Olympus was not done to the older customary standards and was done just to silence the endless user's complaints.

I agree with those that say that DXO should explain to us how they performed these tests, if the methodology was the same used for other products and if the reviewers were the same old seasoned personnel or was done by novices. Maybe I am wrong, but I cannot avoid the feeling that things do not add up.

Question for Axel

Hello Axel, thank you for testing this camera.Can you please answer the comments about the true ISO values of this camera?My question is general - does the scores in DXO are based on the real ISO sensitivity, or the manufacture stated values?

Re: Question for Axel

Compare DxO and DPReview PICTURE results

Has anyone compared the pictures on dpreview.com under "16. Noise & Noise Reduction" for the OM-D EM-5? http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusem5/16Compare the OM-D with a Panasonic DMC-G3, Sony NEX-7 and a Samsung NX200. Look at the tests for both JPEG and RAW. This is a little hard to do since NEX-7 only has noise reduction "High Low or Normal" and no apparent OFF. With NR "off" the Samsung is the cleanest up thru 6400, but the image produced by the Samsung is almost invisible at this stage. I guess great ISO is possible but if the picture is hard to see, why bother? Of the 4, the OM-D and NEX-7 are very close at NR=Low setting. In the ACR Raw noise test (lets face it, RAW is where you see what the sensor can really do, internal processing can only degrade the image SOMEWHERE) the OM-D is far better up to 3200 with ACR NR off, not only are the test swatches smoother, the image is clearer. Again, the Samsung has better swatch but the image is too washed out to be useful. I think DxO does a real service with their test results and they are useful for comparison before a purchase but primarily, I need to consider the results of the picture as I see it as the final factor. I bought an OM-D in July and the results have been everything I hoped for. Great shots at incredibly slow speeds (11x14 is beautiful with 1/15 sec hand-held shots of a stream). Very clean shots up to 1600 (what ISO is that really? who knows but in evening light and with no flash I get great shots, that's what counts). Kind of reminds me of when I ditched my Brownie and bought my first Nikon.

First replies for this comment

Re: Compare DxO and DPReview PICTURE results

@Spkeasy Yes I noticed all you said, already. In simple words IMO OMD has better overall results at any ISO from any camera produced APSC or 4/3. That is why I was hoping a good result from DXOMark as they only measure sensor characterstics; and no other factor at all. As DXOMark was always giving pathetic results to Olympus cameras, however their results are ridicolously low. Good that you bought it yourself without waiting for DxoMark. After GH3 tests, maybe I will do the same.

In isos over 400 it is over 1EV off, worst I have ever seen. That is why iso 1600 looks clean, because it is not even iso 800

Anyway, seems a good 4/3 sensor but I find this iso thing very anoying

If you compare this to the GF3 or GF5 which are very well calibrated it would show very easy[url=http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/816%7C0/(brand)/Panasonic/(appareil2)/793%7C0/(brand2)/Olympus/(appareil3)/763%7C0/(brand3)/Panasonic]http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/816%7C0/(brand)/Panasonic/(appareil2)/793%7C0/(brand2)/Olympus/(appareil3)/763%7C0/(brand3)/Panasonic[/url]

Same shot in same lighting conditions with same exposure time, same aperture and same iso the E-M5 will always be 1EV underexpossed

For me this lying to the customers; I guess is better to say you have an amaizing iso 1600 than to tell the truth and say it is just iso 800

First replies for this comment

Re: ISO in Olympus E-M5 is way off

I agree. This is lying.

It seems like Olympus would have done this to game tests, but one has to assume that they couldn't be that stupid. Dozens of publications do ISO tests to find out how accurate the measurements actually are, so the deception would have been immediately apparent to anyone who cared to look.

Unfortunately, the alternative is equally bad: Olympus is incompetent. In this hypothesis, Olympus simply has no idea how to design a camera correctly. This seems equally unlikely, since it's obvious that Olympus can, in fact, design cameras.

I guess, regardless of the explanation, this is very bad. But at least even with the numbers corrected, the E-M5 comes out looking good.

Re: ISO in Olympus E-M5 is way off

Dozens of publications do ISO tests to find out how accurate the measurements actually are, so the deception would have been immediately apparent to anyone who cared to look.

I only know of DXOMark testing real ISOS

Fixing this is as simple as changing the menu isos to the real ones via firmware, something they will not do for sure.

This practice is good to fool people that follow reviews like those of Dpreview, were no one care about the conditions of the shot.

But in real world people will have to use ISO 3200 in conditions where they would normally would use ISO 1600; maybe they do not complain because ISO 3200 on the E-M5 is as good as iso 1600 in other cameras. It is ISO 1600 indeed!!

To be fair most companies (canon, nikon included) lie about real iso but to the date worst example was Fuji X100; the E-M5 has made a new benchmark about what lying is.

This practices are unfair for companies like Leica or Panasonic which have very well calibrated sensors

Re: ISO in Olympus E-M5 is way off

As mentioned in another thread DPReview only tests exposure variance with JPEG while DXO tests the exposure variance with RAW. That is the difference you are seeing here.

Some E-M5 users have already reported that RAW is underexposed by 1EV vs JPEG when shooting RAW+JPEG. Oly likely does this to help preserve the highlights. So they likely push the underexposed RAW output of shadows and mid-tones by 1EV, leaving highlights underexposed therefore preserving them in JPEG. You noticed from Dpreview the E-M5 had very high JPEG DR.

Re: ISO in Olympus E-M5 is way off

Dear seta666,

I think you have a misunderstanding of what the sensor ISO means. There are two fundamentally different ways of defining ISO.

1) The industry-standard definition of sensor ISO is based on the amount of light it takes to saturate the sensor (produce a value equal to pure white). That's important to know, because any exposures greater than that just get clipped. It can produce counterintuitive values. If you double the efficiency with which the sensor captures photons and converts them to photoelectrons, leaving all its other characteristics unchanged, then it only takes half as much light to saturate the sensor and you've doubled the ISO. That make sense.

But… Suppose you make a sensor that just has larger pixels or deeper wells, so that it can hold more photoelectrons. Not changing anything else about it, just giving it a longer dynamic range. What happens then? Well, it takes more light to saturate the sensor. Which means its sensor ISO **DROPS**! But it still has the same sensitivity to light at any given level. WTF?

As I said, counterintuitive.

This is one reason why many large format digital backs, with their huge pixels and huge dynamic range (which means a huge exposure range) come in with such low ISO values. Their pixels aren't insensitive, but they are designed to be huge light buckets, so it takes a lot of light to fill them.

2) The industry-standard definition for camera ISO, and the one that makes the most intuitive sense to photographers, is based on evaluating real photographs to determine which exposure produces the best looking results. It doesn't directly connect to what exposure saturates the sensor. That is just one factor. For example, less exposure (higher ISO) leaves you with more highlight headroom before you start getting clipping, but the picture will look noisier. Conversely, more exposure (lower ISO) produces a cleaner photograph but your highlights will block up sooner.

One result is that you can get different camera makers deciding on different camera ISOs for the very same sensor, depending on what they think is the optimum balance for image quality. But almost always, they will choose a camera ISO that is somewhat less than the sensor ISO (unless it's a VERY long-dynamic-range sensor) because blown-out highlights are unpopular.

Another consequence is that the camera ISO can change with the camera design, even with the same sensor. The noise in the picture isn't just the result of the sensor characteristics, it's the result of the entire electronic chain, the amplifiers and all the rest. Different electronics designs will produce different amounts of picture noise for the same exposure with the same sensor. That affects the balance between what are acceptable levels of noise and an acceptable range of highlight detail. Lower noise means you can increase the camera ISO and still get good image quality. But the sensor ISO hasn't changed!

That's why DxOMark gives you a plot of camera ISO vs. sensor ISO. It doesn't reveal that a camera manufacturer is “fudging” or “lying.” It tells you how the two different kinds of ISO, which are legitimately determined in very different ways, compare.

In isos over 400 it is over 1EV off, worst I have ever seen. That is why iso 1600 looks clean, because it is not even iso 800

Anyway, seems a good 4/3 sensor but I find this iso thing very anoying

You do understand that, with the advent of matrix/evaluative metering, manufacturers come up with their own idea of what is a "good" exposure. This means one manufacturer's ISO Sensitivity setting may be different from the other.

The Olympus ISO reference level is fairly consistent within its own brand:

The manufacturers typically use either the REI or SOS method, but they don't apply to raw files, which is what DxOMark uses. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_sensitivity#Digital

Quoting:[color=brown]Because the output level is measured in the sRGB output from the camera, it is only applicable to sRGB images—typically TIFF—and not to output files in raw image format. It is not applicable when multi-zone metering is used.[/color]

Re: ISO in Olympus E-M5 is way off

Ctein and Dan!

Thanks very much for the detailed explanation, intuitive ans some counterintuitive but nevertheless very useful and makes very good sense.

I still, however, feel as a RAW only shooter, to get the camera in RAW ISO settings instead of Manuf JPEG optimised one! Manuf can still point out, or we can find from our own testing, or through review sites, what is the best ISO for quality and can mark it ISO100 in our mind, for that purpose :)

This also explains why DPR High ISO RAW comparison shows better results for OMD than any other APSC :) I must agree here, I prefer DXOMark, now! However still one confusion on test results, TechRadar also uses DXOMark tools why they getting DR higher than any other in that test? Numbers clearly different from DXOMark! They are not calling it RAW but TIFF:

Re: ISO in Olympus E-M5 is way off

Dear Hakeem,

The methods the camera makers use to determine camera ISO with cameras that can provide both JPEG and RAW files out will produce the same ISO for both kinds of files. If they didn't, it would look very confusing to photographers, since what they see is a JPEG preview in camera. If JPEGs and RAW files had different effective ISOs, the converted RAW photograph would look much lighter or darker than what they saw, and they would be unhappy.

That said, just as back in the film days, you're always best off determining your own personal Exposure Index. Me, I tend to bias exposures towards the low side, even with the OMD, because the slight increase in noise doesn't bother me and I really hate blown out highlights. Your mileage will differ. If you decide you consistently want something different, you can program in an exposure offset, but meanwhile the conveniently-located exposure bias dial is your best friend.

I can't explain TechRadar's exposure range results, which do seem anomalously high to me, but I don't think there's much point in trying. Measuring RAW exposure range requires you to make some assumptions about what your noise floor is going to be, and it is also sensitive to experimental design (dpreview has a poor design for measuring the exposure range of very long-range cameras, in my opinion).

Basically, you shouldn't try to compare camera reviews across different sites (or magazines). So long as the testing procedures don't change, you can compare different cameras within one site, but you cannot expect different testers to produce the same results. Sometimes it happens, but there's no guarantee.

Re: ISO in Olympus E-M5 is way off

Quote:

Basically, you shouldn't try to compare camera reviews across different sites (or magazines). So long as the testing procedures don't change, you can compare different cameras within one site, but you cannot expect different testers to produce the same results. Sometimes it happens, but there's no guarantee.

Very true. However, the comparative DR and color depth measured by DXO does not seem to agree with comparative RAW data from other testing sites. For example, compare the RX100 sensor to the OMD sensor (with a 1 stop hit in ISO). Competing sites I've looked at have the OMD with at least 1EV advantage in DR and ~1 bit in color depth even with the 1 stop ISO hit. DXO has the sensors at parody. The same lack of comparative agreement for DR and CD applies to NEX sensors as well. Seems a bit fishy to me as the sensors are in the same family.

What I don't understand is why the test data took so long and what the "anomalies" were in the data to cause the months of delay. Added "processing"? Who knows.

Re: ISO in Olympus E-M5 is way off

First off, there is no "1 stop ISO hit." Go read my earlier posts-- you're misunderstanding what the ISO chart is telling you.

Second, how does amount of time you had to wait for the test have any bearing on its validity?

Third, I can tell you, with 40 years of product testing and review writing under my belt, that there is absolutely nothing "fishy" about different folks getting different experimental results. It would be fishy if they DIDN'T!

Fourth, "sensors ... in the same family" doesn't mean damn thing. Nobody is testing bare sensors, they're testing sensors embedded in cameras, and the camera design (both hardware and software) will always make for differences in the resulting images, sometimes substantial ones.

Re: ISO in Olympus E-M5 is way off

Well, for the ISO measurement that matters is the RAW iso; if they pushing an image 1EV via software they are not making good use of the sensor information. Almost half the information the sensor gathers is on the last EV to the right, this is why we expose to the right in digital. There is no need to loose information on the highlight if you expose well.

Underexposing every shot 1EV to preserve highlights in JPGs it is one of the silliest things I have heard of. I do not really care about JPGs, I always use RAW

DR goes both ways, to the shadows and to the highlight so if you are underexposing 1EV you are preserving nothing, you are loosing 1EV in the shadows. When you expose to the right you are the one to chose where the whites will clip; I rather be the one to choose, not some stupid algorithm. For scenes with only 7-9 EV DR you can expose to the right safe and have all the DR needed and low noise, for high DR scenes you have to choose what to sacrifice.

In my opinion as user this is cheating, because if I buy a camera for its very good high iso (1600, 3200)just to find out that the RAWs are deliberately being underexposed and I have to bump the exposure time to get the right exposure (to the right)I will feel like a fool.

Medium format cameras may need more light to feed the sensor, I do not of anyone using digital backs for low light work. They do have a very clean base ISO which is what most MF users need.

The E-M5 is being sold as a 4/3 low light beast with APS-C like performance and if you compare JPGs may look like it, at the end is only a software trick. I am possitive an E-M5 will need twice the exposure time over a Panasonic G5, even in JPG. I can not try it as I do not own any of this cameras.

I have nothing against 4/3, Olympus etc but this cheating pisses me off; I find it unfair for other companies like panasonic which gives their customers well calibrated sensors.

Re: ISO in Olympus E-M5 is way off

Well, I'm bowing out. Every paragraph in your last post contains some factual error or fundamental misunderstanding about how exposure works. I just can't address all that bad information.

If you want to go on thinking that this is somehow a huge cheat and a functional failure, nothing I can do to fix that.

I will leave you with this. Along with having the technical background and long experience to understand this subject that you don't have, I also have an OMD and have run my own tests and comparisons. Whereas you are theorizing based on a profoundly incorrect understanding of exposure determination and ISOs.

Re: ISO in Olympus E-M5 is way off

Quote:

First off, there is no "1 stop ISO hit." Go read my earlier posts-- you're misunderstanding what the ISO chart is telling you.

I did read your informative comments of the ISO/DR/CD relationship. Thank you. I was not referring to the DXO ISO measurements in my comment. I was attempting to equalize the DR & CD data from other sites. It was my assertion that DXO uses a different ISO reference than other testing sites. Perhaps this is wrong to make this correction. If it is, the relative difference between what DXO states for DR & CD (RX-100 vs OMD) and what other sites state is even greater.

Second, how does amount of time you had to wait for the test have any bearing on its validity?

The testing was done on the OM-D at least 2.5 months ago noted by their own people. The reason given not to release the info was "surprising" results. I see nothing surprising about these results other than they do not align with the relative findings of other testing sites. It would be good if DXO would explain what the surprising issue was.

Third, I can tell you, with 40 years of product testing and review writing under my belt, that there is absolutely nothing "fishy" about different folks getting different experimental results. It would be fishy if they DIDN'T!

I understand that there are differences between measurements between sites. I was commenting to the relative difference between DXO's conclusions as compared to as compared to the conclusions of other sites. In this manner, they do not track. As stated, you should be able to compare cameras within one site and get similar results or rankings.

Fourth, "sensors ... in the same family" doesn't mean damn thing. Nobody is testing bare sensors, they're testing sensors embedded in cameras, and the camera design (both hardware and software) will always make for differences in the resulting images, sometimes substantial ones.

Perhaps, yet Panasonic/Olympus (Panasonic) sensors of the same size and vintage measure similarly. Nikon/Sony/Pentax (Sony) sensors measure similarly as well. From other sites, it appeared that the OM-D had higher performance than Sony NEX sensors. Perhaps from added processing of the RAW data. This higher performance does not show up in DXO's results.

In the end, Olympus has done their own compromise between low noise performance, dynamic range, and color depth with the processing of the Sony sensor. I'm just noting that the DXO relative test results are poorer (although still good) as compared to other sites relataive test results for the OM-D.

Re: ISO in Olympus E-M5 is way off

Well, I'm bowing out. Every paragraph in your last post contains some factual error or fundamental misunderstanding about how exposure works. I just can't address all that bad information.

If you want to go on thinking that this is somehow a huge cheat and a functional failure, nothing I can do to fix that.

I will leave you with this. Along with having the technical background and long experience to understand this subject that you don't have, I also have an OMD and have run my own tests and comparisons. Whereas you are theorizing based on a profoundly incorrect understanding of exposure determination and ISOs.

pax / Ctein

Well, you may be right then. I do not own an E-M5 and I do not intend to own one. It is just that this manufacturer/measured iso thing bothers me somehow. Maybe it should not bother me but it certanly does, I can not help it.

Re: ISO in Olympus E-M5 is way off

Hi everybody!

I can understand now the 1EV difference, quite clearly. Since its capturing the image at ISO100 roughly, but matching the exposure time to ISO200 by underexpsoing -1EV and then brightning up the shadows to match what you could possibly get at ISO200 with the equal brightness in shadows!

To be fair, I like this approach more than Nikon D-Lightning where the impact is only on JPEGS and I had to push up the shadow details in RAW myself in post processing tone-curve adjustment. And if its right out of the camera, its not only time saving, but also it also gives me a degree of confidence that Oly have done something more sensibly within their Processing pipeline, that I dont have to bother now.

The only negative impact it could possibly have is more noise in the shadows, but if am not seeing it much, Oly has all the right to call it whatever ISO they want, provided its not giving me a penalty of taking a longer expsosure (slower shutter speed) comparative to lets say Pany G5 at equally rated ISO; so am agreeing with @Ctier here. I would like to request if you can share your OMD results with us.

But I can also completely understand the frustration @Javier is having here, but on the fair side, if there are still cleaner images at equal ISOs, ISOs-scores should be relative. And as Oly sacrifices ISOs for DR then we should have clearly seen a massive difference than what is measured. The only score I could accept here blindly is maybe a lower Color Depth, but I guess Oly scored pretty well on it. But Javier I am bit more concerned with DXO results than you as I am still quite keen in upgrading my m43 body and depending on GH3 resultsheet, I may decide to go for OMD, will see. That is why I really like to clear my doubts and confusions around DXOMark testing process.@jyhfeei same sensors behaves slightly differently in different bodies, depending on the underlying electronics and assembly designed around it. Oly with an IBIS for the same reason was giving some bad results compard to Pany with OIS in lenses. Sony SLT using the same sensor with their aXXX DSLRS and NEX range have visible differences too. Even DSLRs from Nikon, Sony and Pentax got some marginal differences, because of slight differences of electronics, processors and even lenses, on all these outputs higher ISO, CD and DR. But the trouble is that in this test result the massive difference is huge and very visible and I agree results are posted very late.

I don't wanna blame DXOMark for anything immoral here, as they must be doing quite hardword here producing these results but I think they should bring more agility and clarity to their testing process and should also mention what lenses they are using while testing these cameras.

Also if these test results inconsistency is due to their normalisation on Image size to lower resolution, probably they should re-consider it.

Re: ISO in Olympus E-M5 is way off

Dear Javier (and Hakeem),

I just wrote a more extended column on this ISO vs. ISO business for The Online Photographer. Reading it and the associated comments may help clarify the matter. At least I hope so, if I did my job right!

Regarding the matter of the relative discrepancies between test sites, that's one possible side effect of different testing regimens. I would note that a half stop difference in results, which really isn't very large in the total scheme of things, would be enough to change the rankings between cameras between sites.

Personally, I can't reconcile the extreme exposure range reported by TechRadar with my own results, either in terms of absolute measurements or improvements over the Olympus Pen. I mean, the OMD is a lot better, but it's nowhere near three stops better in anything I measure. Obviously there is some discrepancy between my methods and theirs, but without being in their lab I could never, ever figure out what it would be. And neither can any of you.

And that doesn't mean I'm saying they are wrong and they are right (well, of course my ego says I am right, but that's not exactly an objective and reliable witness). All I can say is that we differ.

Expecting the folks at DxOMark to be able to explain WHY there are differences between the different sites also requires them to know things about the other sites' testing methods they probably don't know.

Let me give you a hypothetical way sites could come up with very different exposure ranges for high-range cameras. The ideal laboratory way to measure exposure range is to have a uniform broad light source that you can vary in intensity while you keep the camera settings constant. That will give you the most accurate results. It also requires the most laboratory set up, including an accurate photometer to measure the light source with.

At the other extreme, you could just set up a long-density-range step tablet and photograph it and count up the number of detectable steps between pure white and pure black. This is very easy to do and gets around all sorts of calibration problems, but is subject to one massive contaminating factor, which is internal flare and light scattering in the camera optics and body. The longer the exposure range the camera can capture, the more serious this becomes.

So, hypothetically, you could have Camera A measuring 13.5 stops and Camera B measuring 13 stops by the first method. But if Camera A had worse flare than B, the second test method might produce results of 12 stops and 12.5 stops respectively, and the rankings reverse.

Worse, you can't say which result is more legitimate. If you are trying to measure sensor characteristics, as DxOMark is, then the first method is more appropriate. But the second may produce results that more accurately reflect what happens with photographs made in the real world.

This is why testers and reviewers are really, really reluctant to badmouth each other's work. It's not because we're mutually covering our asses, it's because this stuff is rocket science.

Re: ISO in Olympus E-M5 is way off

Ctein,

Thanks a lot for that post. I ate it up.

A question, though. If DxO Mark is using the saturation-based measurement method of determining ISO, that lines up with your statement that MF backs are not less sensative, it's just that they can eat up more light.

But wouldn't that make dynamic range and ISO divergent? By that, if a sensor remains the same, but the dynamic range is increased, then the ISO measurement should fall. This doesn't seem to line up with the new sensors, which have huge boosts to DR, but also see increases in ISO performance.

Re: ISO in Olympus E-M5 is way off

Quote:

Expecting the folks at DxOMark to be able to explain WHY there are differences between the different sites also requires them to know things about the other sites' testing methods they probably don't know.

I wouldn't expect DXOMark to explain the differences between their data and data measured from other sites. However, I do think that DXO would be best served by explaining why the OM-D results took so long and what was so surprising. Perhaps this could explain some of the site-to-site differences noted.

Unfortunately, DXO provides their results as a black box with no optical means to see what they are measuring. Although DPR testing practices get bashed by a number of members on this forum, DXO would benefit from adding DPR-like optical comparison features to their results.

Now, if they would only test the different brands in a consistent and timely manner. Then we would all be happy campers.

Re: ISO in Olympus E-M5 is way off

Well, in the broad sense, the answer is that the magical phrase, "all other things being equal" hardly ever applies in the real world. Any one change to a sensor is accompanied by many others.

Now, *IF* you made a sensor with pixels of the same area and of the same photo-conversion efficiency, but with deeper potential wells that could hold more photo-electrons, *THEN* its sensor ISO would fall while its exposure range increased. At least, as I understand the ISO specs.

But, in practice, that isn't likely to happen. Everything changes at the same time, in a new generation of sensors.

You can see the anomalies if you dig deeply enough. For example the OMD has only 2/3 stop higher sensor ISO than the Olympus Pen EP1, but it performs much better under high ISO conditions. Its ISO 1600 looks significantly better than the EP-1's ISO 800.

Sensor measurements aren't supposed to tell you the whole story, any more than MTF curves tell you everything you need to know about a lens. They are useful information, but they're only one piece of a large, ummm, picture.

Re: ISO in Olympus E-M5 is way off

Dear jyhfeei,

Perhaps this is simply a failure of imagination on my part, but all the reasons I can think of why they *might* find a result surprising would not illuminate the results or explain any site-to-site differences.

I can think of lots of possible reasons a reviewer might say that, but they're not particularly useful after the fact.

Nine times out of ten, when a reviewer says that it means they found the results odd enough that they suspected either their test methods or the equipment being tested. The usual response to which is to double-check your procedures and get another product unit to see if it behaves like the first.

It's all kinda interesting from a back-stage point of view, but it doesn't much bear on the results.

What do you specifically imagine as an explanation that would reveal the answers you desire?

DxOMark does have a large number of technical white papers online that go into their testing protocols and methodologies. More than most sites. It takes some expertise to understand this material, but I would opine that if one lacks that expertise, one is not competent to question the results or methods. One simply has to accept them.

Re: ISO in Olympus E-M5 is way off

Thanks Ctein for your detailed responses. I finally reaached to my conclusion about different ISO standards and why different testers chose to take different practices.

Finally in my opinion measuring DR with long-density-range step tablet as you mentioned is more realistic, even with its problem (internal flare) as this tells me how my complete camera system will behave in the field, not what the sensor alone is behaivng in a test lab.

Finally thanks to your origional comment, we should follow one tester as not all websites following the same regime, I felt DPReview take on ISO standards as they mentioned in the two part article: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4241806072/sense-and-sensitivity is very sensible approach.

How exactly deap a sensor well or how wide their opening (pixel density) is secondary, all being a modern digital age photographer I care is what is the outcome of my work in the real world.

This also helps me realise that as I was origionally suspecting its not DXO doing something fishy, its just their standards are too conventional, I wish if they also write an article to back their point.

And Now We Know

I'm glad to finally have these results. I hope that you guys don't get swamped with work again and are able to test the GH3 very soon, because I find it to be the more exciting m4/3 camera.

I have to admit, I'm a little disappointed with the color depth and DR numbers. Obviously, I would have never expected ISO numbers to match the APS-C models, but I was hoping for closer readings on the other two variables.

Still, for me, this signifies more than anything else that Olympus has STOPPED MESSING AROUND. They spent three years producing shit, and they have finally given us the m4/3 camera they should have made when they originally produced the E-P1.

Re: And Now We Know

Re: And Now We Know

Quote:

<div id="linkdxomark">This a comment for <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Olympus/OM-D-E-M5">this page on the website</a></div>

I have to admit, I'm a little disappointed with the color depth and DR numbers. Obviously, I would have never expected ISO numbers to match the APS-C models, but I was hoping for closer readings on the other two variables.

If the ISO speed for the OMD is off by a stop, I think the noise rating from DXO makes sense (relative to other site data). However, the color depth and DR still seem too low. Even with the stop difference in ISO, other sites have the OMD sensor neck and neck with the NEX cameras and completely dominating the RX100 sensor. Yet DXO has the OMD neck and neck with the 1", RX100 sensor. I don't know if I buy it.

One thing that is not explained in the review are the reasons for the months delay in results. Previously, there were "anomalies" with the data. What is special about these results? The ISO issue should not trip up DXO by their testing methods. Nothing explained, as usual.

Re: And Now We Know

Re: And Now We Know

jyhfeei and DXOMARK all we can do is speculate here, lets see what DXOMark says, or lets see if they really care about their readers/fans?!?

@cocute no they were not shit :D they are still better than compacts and maybe Sensor 1 but you can say they were not as good as Sony's recent bread of APSC cameras. Results from Pany GH1 and GH2 were quite reasonable otherwise, for many. Lets see how they perform with GH3!

First replies for this comment

Re: finally here .. but the result data conflicts

Re: finally here .. but the result data conflicts

I think that is because DxOMark's testing is more rigorous, or perhaps different is a better term. They determine their ISO score based on the point that detail, dynamic range, and color depth all stay above a certain value.

So for example, a camera may do very well as regards detail retention, but the camera will still get a score of 600 from DxO if the color depth or DR drop too low.

Re: finally here .. but the result data conflicts

DPreview only tests exposure differences with JPEG. DXO tests the exposure difference with RAW. That is the difference you are seeing here.

Some E-M5 users have already reported that RAW is underexposed by 1EV vs JPEG when shooting RAW+JPEG. Oly likely does this to help preserve the highlights. So they likely push the RAW output of shadows and mid-tones by 1EV, leaving highlights underexposed therefore preserving them in JPEG. You noticed from Dpreview the E-M5 had very high JPEG DR.

Re: finally here .. but the result data conflicts

Yes I can understand that, Nikon also does the same with D-Lightning. So with RAW+JPEG on, I experienced same with Nikon D90 and even more with D5100. So if you are setting RAW+JPEG in Oly OMD you will get the same, as same exposure will be applied on both formats. However when taking in RAW mode only this shouldn't be a problem. DPReview compare photos in RAW and high ISO too, why they didn't noticed difference in exposure? http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusem5/21I will raise the concern in DPR forum too.I can understand the excuse for pushing up in SLT cameras, but in m43?

Also where its mentioned in DXOMark website, what testing procedure they are using? As I can't find it. It should be mentioned somewhere that they use caliberated ISOs and not factory default one!

But then I also noticed, DXO never tested Fuji EXR modes properly, they always tested on standard mode, never in hardware DR-priority mode! Even a few times I requested here to retest the cameras in DR mode too, even if it cost drop in resolution, as for many of us its not an issue, but lower DR is!

Re: finally here .. but the result data conflicts

Oly has built this in to their cameras since the E30. It applies to both jpeg and raw, and commercial raw processors respect the tone curve so you see the brightness you expect when you import a raw. That's why DPR doesn't say much on it (they did at first, and even wrote a little clarifying article). In some open source processors like Raw Therapee, you don't get the automatic brightening.

Quote:

Yes I can understand that, Nikon also does the same with D-Lightning. So with RAW+JPEG on, I experienced same with Nikon D90 and even more with D5100. So if you are setting RAW+JPEG in Oly OMD you will get the same, as same exposure will be applied on both formats. However when taking in RAW mode only this shouldn't be a problem. DPReview compare photos in RAW and high ISO too, why they didn't noticed difference in exposure? http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusem5/21I will raise the concern in DPR forum too.I can understand the excuse for pushing up in SLT cameras, but in m43?

Also where its mentioned in DXOMark website, what testing procedure they are using? As I can't find it. It should be mentioned somewhere that they use caliberated ISOs and not factory default one!

But then I also noticed, DXO never tested Fuji EXR modes properly, they always tested on standard mode, never in hardware DR-priority mode! Even a few times I requested here to retest the cameras in DR mode too, even if it cost drop in resolution, as for many of us its not an issue, but lower DR is!

Re: finally here .. but the result data conflicts

I'm not sure why your Nikon raw files don't do that. It all depends on what information is carried over with the raw file, and what Lightroom or other processors are designed to do with a file. With m43, that includes automatic lens corrections. And with Oly (and maybe the new GH3) that includes making an iso 200 exposure look like an iso 200 exposure, even if the sensor iso is closer to 100. The Techradar review tested Tiffs, I think, well before any raw converters were ready (other than Olympus Viewer). Seems to produce different results, perhaps to do with the extra noise reduction that automatically happens in Viewer.

Quote:

@jkrumm well yo don't get auto brightening in Lightroom RAW as well, atleast I noticed it during my imports on nikon D5100.

why you think there is a difference in results on techradar review of OMD-EM5 (which clearly is the best in DR and high ISO) and DXOMark, while they are also using the same tools to measure ???

Re: finally here .. but the result data conflicts

Don't know maybe, but thenI think Tiff are generated from RAW for further testing as they don't have any compression artifacts/ side effects.

And if they are testing without proper RAW convertors from Olympus or Thirdparty, this should only give Olympus some disadvantage ???

Anyways I hate the fact we are only speculating here, probably if DXO don't bother explaining these things officialy, I should regards their results with less value or maybe just ignore them altogether :(